Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There is a general perception that increases in "ratuonality" in a population will increase Innovation. Certainly there is some evidence that religious belief has declined at the same time that education in areas such as evolution has increased. In fact the rapid increase in living standards due to scientific Innovation is almost universally accepted as proof that primitive belief systems impede progress. While there is certainly some connection between rationality and progress evidence suggests that the relationship is complicated.

    Over the past 40 years as liberalism has come to dominate Western culture the rate of Innovation has actually been declining. T​​​​​​

    Innovation is dying, and experts are to blame

    Over the last few decades, the Western world has had an increasingly specialised workforce, with workers trained in narrow skills, for increasingly narrow positions. However, the more narrow our jobs have become, the less capable we have become in inventing new technologies, products and ideas.
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...led-innovation


    After the dizzying breakthroughs of the 20th century, physics seems to have ground to a halt
    https://aeon.co/essays/has-progress-...come-to-a-halt


    Liberalism is a product of the enlightenment and it certainly played a role in scientific development. Perhaps by reducing the role of dogma and conservatism in the culture. At the level of the individual however the role that "liberalism" plays in Innovation becomes murky. Newton for example made considerable contributions to science but spent the last year's if his life in religious speculation.

    Judging from the decline in Innovation in recent decades at the same time that the majority of scientists profess some degree of affinity for liberal politics points to a need to question the conventional wisdom. It would seem that popular culture drives affiliation more than innovation rates.

    The evidence suggests that current philosophy of science as understood by the general population is misleading. Science as it turns out is even less dependent on philosophy than the scientists critical of philosophy have proposed.

    The current evidence suggests that science is autistic genius. It completely eliminated the subjective, the empathetic, the individual and focused on the objective, the object, independent of the observer. It rejects philosophy in favor of the senses. The tools are cultural but the practice acultural.

    The reality of how science works is proving to cause considerable cognitive dissonance in those embedded in a culture that is increasingly dominated by the liberal moral foundation characteristics of caring and fairness. Characteristics that work against the autistic genius of science. That is especially true in the social sciences but also influences areas such as climate "science". The problem is not so much the science itself as how it is organized and interpreted.

    Scientific innovation is done by "crazy" people who don't care about your feelings such as Isaac Newton. Most of our current scientists are glorified engineers making incremental innovations. Rationally in this perspective is a doubled edged sword. We are not talking about the irrationally of the schizoid personality because that truly is empathetic chaos. We are talking about a "crazy" indifference to the empathetic.

    The move towards collectivism in recent years has corrupted the autistic genius of science. We are dominated by the Yin. The problem is not "bad" science it is how conformist our popular culture has become. Whatever is considered "moral" is assimilated and the broader reality is left outside.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      ...
      ...
      What a load of dribble.

      Get rid of a leader who thinks wind turbines cause cancer and global warming a Chinese hoax... that stifles investment into science and innovation.

      By the way, how's that solar farm on your property going?

      "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
      Ernest Hemingway.

      Sapere aude.

      Comment


      • People are not thinking about solar in the proper framework. Solar is a potential conservation tool not a sustainability option or replacement for centralized generation. The main problem as TAG keeps pointing out is the grid. Even if you could make it cost effective it is sufficiently unreliable that individual users still want to be connected to the grid.

        If you could make solar cells nearly as inexpensive and with a similar life expectancy as other roofing material there seems to be no logical reason, besides for environmental concerns, not to utilize it. That said connection directly to the grid comes with a host of problems. I say directly because even if it is only used for point production it is still effectively part of the grid. If it is not connected directly the serious issue of over production is eliminated but you still have the problem of wildly fluctuating demand. The only obvious practical solution is for each point of production to become self sufficient. That probably means fossil fuel generators and at the moment that makes each point production site a microcosm of the current distribution issue.

        The entire environmental movement is plagued by a no cost to high mentality. That leads to serious problems with tunnel vision. It's like the samurai code running head long into the reality of modern warfare. We have become fixated on what is currently available instead of building up a more sophisticated and comprehensive approach. We are in what is called a moral panic. By definition just as the Sam's mural code was at odds with reality our moral panic is extremely costly. Especially for the poor. Good intentions are the road to hell.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

          What a load of dribble.

          Get rid of a leader who thinks wind turbines cause cancer and global warming a Chinese hoax... that stifles investment into science and innovation.

          By the way, how's that solar farm on your property going?
          Decided to let you mindlessly subsidize corn instead of solar.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

            Decided to let you mindlessly subsidize corn instead of solar.
            I'm Australian not American so that doesn't stick.

            As a former farmer myself, how many farm products are subsidised in the US now? Last time I checked China subsidised about twice as much as the US, Swiss were the highest subsidisers... three times as much as China.
            "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
            Ernest Hemingway.

            Sapere aude.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

              I'm Australian not American so that doesn't stick.

              As a former farmer myself, how many farm products are subsidised in the US now? Last time I checked China subsidised about twice as much as the US, Swiss were the highest subsidisers... three times as much as China.
              We will just accept that your subsidy comes in the form of environmental degradation from the massive amount of hydrocarbons used in corn production.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                People are not thinking about solar in the proper framework. Solar is a potential conservation tool not a sustainability option or replacement for centralized generation. The main problem as TAG keeps pointing out is the grid. Even if you could make it cost effective it is sufficiently unreliable that individual users still want to be connected to the grid.

                If you could make solar cells nearly as inexpensive and with a similar life expectancy as other roofing material there seems to be no logical reason, besides for environmental concerns, not to utilize it. That said connection directly to the grid comes with a host of problems. I say directly because even if it is only used for point production it is still effectively part of the grid. If it is not connected directly the serious issue of over production is eliminated but you still have the problem of wildly fluctuating demand. The only obvious practical solution is for each point of production to become self sufficient. That probably means fossil fuel generators and at the moment that makes each point production site a microcosm of the current distribution issue.

                The entire environmental movement is plagued by a no cost to high mentality. That leads to serious problems with tunnel vision. It's like the samurai code running head long into the reality of modern warfare. We have become fixated on what is currently available instead of building up a more sophisticated and comprehensive approach. We are in what is called a moral panic. By definition just as the Sam's mural code was at odds with reality our moral panic is extremely costly. Especially for the poor. Good intentions are the road to hell.
                For what Obama squandered on his idiot "shovel ready" stimulus failure, we could have invested in 50 new large nuclear power plants and been essentially carbon free, or approaching that point today. It would have allowed phasing out coal in the US for electrical generation entirely. The coal industry could have been reoriented to export production and uranium and thorium mining instead.

                But, that's not going to happen because the same idiots crying the loudest for more solar and wind are irrationally paranoid and delusional about nuclear power and its supposed dangers.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  For what Obama squandered on his idiot "shovel ready" stimulus failure, we could have invested in 50 new large nuclear power plants and been essentially carbon free, or approaching that point today. It would have allowed phasing out coal in the US for electrical generation entirely. The coal industry could have been reoriented to export production and uranium and thorium mining instead.

                  But, that's not going to happen because the same idiots crying the loudest for more solar and wind are irrationally paranoid and delusional about nuclear power and its supposed dangers.
                  It was under Nixon that the Molten Salt Reactor program ended. We were still in a cold war mentality so the diversion of funds from "safe" technology to something that suited the military is understandable. This would have been a perfect time for environmental groups to embrace nuclear. Unfortunately anytime a conformational atmosphere exist people dig their heels in and progress slows.

                  A democracy is the worst form of government if you want "progress". Even if Obama had wanted to embrace nuclear it seems unlikely he could have done so for political reasons. Since we live in a democracy of sorts the blame usually falls on the electorate. In this case it certainly looks like the public's failure to educate themselves on nuclear technology and simply rely on the "experts" certainly contributed to missed opportunities.

                  It's easy to point fingers at others but despite educating myself on nuclear power in the 70s I opposed it simply on the basis of cost per kilowatt. Still I blame the incompetent media for my ignorance. Had I known that research had been canceled on the Molten Salt Reactor I certainly would have opposed doing so. The cost problem I would have immediately realized, had I had the appropriate information, was related to how dangerous the available technology was. Safe, and simple is generally less expensive.

                  Some of the problem here must be related to my previous post on innovation. Especially how the Yin brain focuses on immediate security related to a caring and fairness moral foundation. It's a world view incompatible with cost, benefit analysis.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • The problem with nuclear power is two-fold:

                    First there is a general ignorance about things nuclear, from how reactors work to what radiation is and its real dangers as opposed to the Hollywood version.

                    The second is a connection that really doesn't exist between nuclear weapons and commercial power plants. Equating the two is like saying there's some significant connection between cruise missiles and mining explosives.

                    Today we can build incredibly safe reactors like ones with pebble bed technology or Thorium based reactors. We have sufficient fuel for these in the US alone to meet our power needs for at least a millennia. There are safe methods to recycle or store the waste from these plants that isn't being utilized today out of ignorance and fear.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      The problem with nuclear power is two-fold:
                      The second is a connection that really doesn't exist between nuclear weapons and commercnial power plants. Equating the two is like saying there's some significant connection between cruise missiles and mining explosives.
                      Meh, that's not quite true. Many, if not most, existing reactors trace their lineage from military designs, often intended to generate weapons grade waste. The RBMK reactor used at Chernobyl was a virtual copy of Soviet military reactors.

                      Canada is not innocent in this, either. CANDU reactors are safe designs, and represent about 10% of existing power generation reactors, but they're also directly linked to India's nuclear weapons.

                      I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, but there is actually some justification in drawing a connection between older reactors and nuclear weapons.

                      Today we can build incredibly safe reactors like ones with pebble bed technology or Thorium based reactors. We have sufficient fuel for these in the US alone to meet our power needs for at least a millennia. There are safe methods to recycle or store the waste from these plants that isn't being utilized today out of ignorance and fear.
                      This is true.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                        Meh, that's not quite true. Many, if not most, existing reactors trace their lineage from military designs, often intended to generate weapons grade waste. The RBMK reactor used at Chernobyl was a virtual copy of Soviet military reactors.
                        Maybe for the Russians... Nobody in the Western world uses a graphite moderated fast fission reactor like the Chernobyl design because they are inherently unsafe (I could go on about why), produce weaponizable plutonium as a byproduct of operation, and are an absolute nightmare in terms of clean up when deactivated.

                        Canada is not innocent in this, either. CANDU reactors are safe designs, and represent about 10% of existing power generation reactors, but they're also directly linked to India's nuclear weapons.

                        I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, but there is actually some justification in drawing a connection between older reactors and nuclear weapons.

                        This is true.
                        Older reactors that ran on unenriched uranium using either heavy water (the CANDU) or graphite as a moderator will always produce a quantity of plutonium as a byproduct of operation. That's a problem with fast fission reactors. Thermal fission designs like BWR, PWR, reactors won't, but they require some enrichment of the uranium (usually around 5%) to work.



                        Comment


                        • Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030

                          Comment


                          • That's their choice as a corporation. Fine by me more power to them. What I don't want is the government forcing the Gorebal Warming nonsense on us.

                            Comment


                            • Turning carbon into concrete could win UCLA team a climate victory — and $7.5 million

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Emanuel Macron
                                by casanova
                                The French president Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut, Libanon. He watched the devastation in the city, caused by the Amoniumnitrat explosion....
                                Today, 01:27
                              • casanova
                                Beirut
                                by casanova
                                A awful, dedoerate situation for the population in Beirut, Libanon. A Amoniumnitrat-explosion was the cause of the catastrophe....
                                Yesterday, 23:35
                              • AntiWarmanCake8
                                Battlefields
                                by AntiWarmanCake8
                                One day in the far future I like to visit some Napoleonic battlefields. Does anyone have any ones they would share?

                                I would like to visit:...
                                Yesterday, 20:27
                              Working...
                              X